Legal humor. Seriously.

Technology

June 08, 2010

Opening statements are underway in Rod Blagojevich's trial in Chicago, but there will be no further tweets from @GovernorRod until at least the end of the day: the judge has ordered him not to tweet in court.

"I do not want anybody in the well of the court using Twitter during trial," said Judge James Zagel, according to The Blago Blog, the superbly named Sun-Times blog following the proceedings. Zagel also explained to Blagojevich that public statements (tweeted or otherwise) may come back to haunt him if and when he takes the stand. "Blagojevich nodded," according to the blog, but will almost certainly not shut up, because that would require common sense, as well as an ability to shut up, neither of which he seems to possess.

Not that Blago's Twitter feed is likely to be very interesting, partly because like most of the other things he has been saying lately it is just for public relations purposes. Not surprisingly, Blagojevich started using Twitter just a week before trial, has sent (so far) only 13 tweets, and is following just five other feeds: his PR firm, his PR manager, the "PR NewsChannel," HootSuite (a client for managing your own Twitter feed), and @pblagojevich, the feed of his wife, Patti Blagojevich.

As their last pretrial tweets demonstrate, the two Blagojeviches have both steeled themselves for what will clearly be the fight of their lives:

@pblagojevich: Wondering if I have time to get to macy's to get the lip gloss Amy wants for her graduation night.

Well, I'm sure Patti also wants to unlock the truth, but life must go on.

The most recent update from the Sun-Times is that Blagojevich's lawyer, Sam Adam, Jr., is now off to the races. "[B]y the end of this case," he told the jury, "I'm telling you, that man there is as honest as the day is long. And you will know it where? In your gut!" I'm feeling something in my gut, that's for sure. He continued: "This is the federal government [prosecuting his client]. The same people chasing Bin Laden are chasing him!"

June 04, 2010

Yukio Hatoyama, who resigned on Wednesday from his job as the prime minister of Japan, has tweeted supporters to let them know of his decision and to ask that they continue to follow him on Twitter.

"I announced my intention to resign as Prime Minister today," Hatoyama said, at least according to one translation of his final official tweet (left), "in order to make the Democratic Party [of Japan] clean again for the sake of the people. From now on I will stop being PM but want to continue to tweet as a normal person. Please keep following me."

That is one translation, but I actually like Google's better:

It is a little disturbing to think that the Japanese term for "dating" also translates to "following me," so I'm going to blame that one on Google Translate.

Hatoyama was reportedly an avid Twitter user, although as of Friday he had only tweeted 184 times. He did have a total of 676,063 followers, which is quite respectable especially considering that he was only in office for eight months. Given the recent slide in Hatoyama's approval ratings, it is entirely possible that he has more Twitter followers in his camp than voters at this point.

Opinions vary on what it was that led to Hatoyama's downfall. Some say it was indecisiveness and his eventual failure to keep campaign promises to remove the American base from the island of Okinawa, something that angered many Japanese. Some point to financial scandals involving political contributions -- when it came to light that his mom had been contributing millions to his campaign, he claimed that was the first he had heard of it. Others say it was this shirt.

Hatoyama was widely mocked for this shirt, which he wore to a barbecue in April. One critic (granted, it was a fashion critic) said the shirt demonstrated that Hatoyama's "ideas and philosophy are old [like his shirt] . . . . Japan is facing a crisis, and we can't overcome it with a prime minister like this." The link between shirt choice and governing philosophy is not entirely clear, but neither this nor the white shirt with red hearts worn under a pink blazer - another poor fashion choice he made - could have helped Hatoyama's image any.

The party has already chosen another leader, so this does seem to be the end of the Hatoyama saga.

May 31, 2010

In my opinion, mapping software paired with GPS technology is one of the more remarkable developments of the modern age, but you know what? You do still need to look where you're going occasionally. Please remember this if you are out for a walk this fine Memorial Day.

Lauren Rosenberg was not aware of, or forgot, this important detail, and so when Google Maps offered her these directions --

- she tootled right along, on foot, onto and along the highway, where she alleges she was hit by a car.

Rosenberg's lawsuit names the driver of the car that hit her as a defendant, which makes sense, but also names Google, alleging it was negligent in steering her onto said road and failed to warn her of the dangers that might be encountered there, to wit, cars. This complaint pretty much speaks for itself:

24. Defendant Google, through its "Google Maps" service provided Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg with walking directions that led her out onto Deer Valley [Road], a.k.a. State Route 224, a rural highway with no sidewalks, and a roadway that exhibits [sic] motor vehicles traveling at high speeds, that is not reasonably safe for pedestrians.

25. The Defendant Google expects users of the walking map site to rely on the accuracy of the walking directions given. . . .

28. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Google's careless, reckless, and negligent providing of unsafe directions, Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg was led onto a dangerous highway, and was thereby stricken [sic] by a motor vehicle. . . .

31. Defendant Google knew or should have known that Deer Valley Road . . . is a rural highway exhibiting vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed, and devoid of pedestrian sidewalks, yet Defendant Google instructed Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg to use that road for her pedestrian travel . . . .

What was Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg to do?

Google should not have to warn people to use common sense when using its maps, but it does, telling people to "use caution" because certain routes "may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths." According to the report, however, this warning does not appear on maps reached from a BlackBerry, which Rosenberg was apparently using, because the screen is too small.

I expect to see an amended complaint shortly naming Research In Motion as an additional defendant.

May 24, 2010

The game developer Capcom "deserves a lot of credit for sticking to one of the least appealing-sounding concepts in game history," writes John Herrman at Gizmodo, said concept being one in which you play an attorney in a game that actually involves the legal system (as opposed to one where you start as an attorney but end up saving the world from aliens or Nazis or whatever). Specifically, you take the role of a defense attorney working up a case. Eventually you must take the case to court, at which point you may start pushing the button to make an Objection!

The first U.S. version of this game (the third to be released in Japan) came out in June 2005 for the Nintendo DS. "The law has never been so much fun!" was the tagline for that game, "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney," and unfortunately that was probably true. Still, I would like to think that if it was possible to put together a heavily edited clip of my career and add theme music I would be able to come up with at least 1:21 of dramatic footage along these lines:

Probably not, but I would like to think that.

Back then, Phoenix was "a nervous defense attorney who [had] just passed the bar," but now -- well, based on this clip of iPhone game play he appears to be in that same position, so either this is just a conversion of the 2005 game or Phoenix has had some ethical problems recently.

Dull as this may sound, the game actually has been reviewed pretty favorably ("consistently funny," says Gizmodo), and so it may be worth the $4.99 it will cost you in the App Store. Those of you considering law school might want to give this game a try, with the exciting music turned off, to see what you think.

May 21, 2010

I was on NPR's Science Friday show this week, yapping about how lawyers are using Facebook profile information as evidence (summary: we use it all the time, if it might be relevant), and one of the topics we discussed is the use of Facebook research to screen potential jurors for bias. We did not discuss MySpace or Twitter, but those are used too. Just FYI.

That means, among other things, that tweets about how much people hate jury duty - and there are lots of those - could potentially be relevant, at least if they suggest somebody was not taking the process seriously. I came across an article in which the author discussed an Ohio case where this happened, and she had run a search on Twitter for the phrase "jury duty," with interesting results. I thought I would try that too. Here is some of what I found:

yo i was in jury duty two weeks ago. fell asleep in court. twice. in one day. at least it was a civil case

I very well could get in trouble for using my phone at jury duty but still wanted to wish u happy birthday LOL

sorry I just saw your reply. Well I went to jury duty this morning and didn't get picked. It pays to show a bias ;)

jury duty was cancelled. Man, and I was looking forward to being a part of the judicial system and screwing a minority. kidding.

Granted, it might be difficult to identify these people (I deliberately left out their Twitter names, although I would very much have liked to post the first one), but clearly there is lots of potentially useful information out there. Also FYI, you are supposed to try to stay awake even in civil cases, falsely claiming to have a bias in order to get out of jury duty I am pretty sure is a crime, and actually demonstrating bias might not always be okay just because you add the word "kidding."

Anyway, I hope I was able to sufficiently frighten people into not using Facebook, or at least convince them not to post anything potentially incriminating.

May 06, 2010

The Louisiana legislature, always on the lookout for important problems to solve, appears likely to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to send an electronic message with the intent to "harass" or "embarrass" any person under 17, whether or not the message actually has any effect. The new law would provide as follows:

R.S. 14:40.7 Cyberbullying

A. Cyberbullying is the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication with the intent to coerce, abuse, torment, intimidate, harass, embarrass, or cause emotional distress to a person under the age of seventeen.

B. For purposes of this Section,"electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication" means any communication of any kind made through the use of a computer online service, Internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, electronic mail, or online messaging service.

Penalties start at $500/six months in jail, and those convicted of three or more cyberbullyings could be fined up to $5,000 and jailed for up to three years.

The chances that this law would be constitutional I would estimate at approximately zero percent. Even limited to communications targeting persons under 17 (rather than, as it originally provided, messages to "any person"), the law is vastly overbroad. It applies to "any means of electronic communication" and to such vague categories of messages that it would criminalize even, let's say, blog posts stating that Louisiana teenagers should be ashamed of their state or stating that they are wussies if they don't immediately take a road trip to Baton Rouge to leave a giant flaming bag of poop on the legislature's doorstep. (Do it, losers.)

More importantly, since the law is clearly intended at least in part to deter potential cyberbullies who are under 17, and because it would be posted online, the law itself would be an "electronic written communication" made with the specific intent to "coerce" or "intimidate" young people into not being cyberbullies. So passing the law against cyberbullying would itself be a criminal act of cyberbullying.

I think I am now willing to support this bill, but only if the legislature agrees to immediately prosecute itself if the bill passes.

April 21, 2010

With all other problems now solved, state legislatures are taking the opportunity to pass laws that will keep our brains (and other parts) free of unwanted microchips.

Georgia Rep. Ed Setzler, a supporter of SB 235, the Microchip Consent Act of 2010, conceded in a meeting of the state's Judiciary Committee last week that he was unaware of any evidence that microchips had actually been implanted in anyone without their consent, but said the legislation was "proactive." Implanting microchips against someone's will, he said, is "such a profound violation of someone's privacy" -- or at least it would be, if and when it ever happens -- that "we want to do something before it starts being enacted on the fringe." I like the phrase "enacted on the fringe" for this story, but he's using it wrong.

The bill would amend the state's current battery statute, although there is little question that the current statute would already preclude nonconsensual microchip-implanting. "Microchip" is defined to include "any microdevice, sensor, transmitter, mechanism, electronically readable marking, or nanotechnology that is passively or actively capable of transmitting or receiving information." Interestingly, pacemakers are excluded from this definition, so those of you who have been worrying that somebody might stick a pacemaker in you without asking should stay on your toes.

Setzler sponsored a similar bill last year, HB 38, which had much stronger penalties, but that did not become law. SB 235, a watered-down measure that makes nonconsensual microchipping a misdemeanor, passed the state Senate on a 47-2 vote, and was favorably reported out of the relevant House committee on April 14th. It got out of that committee despite, not because of, testimony on its behalf, as Journal-Constitution blogger Jim Galloway reported:

At the House hearing, state Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Kennesaw), who is shouldering the legislation in the House, spoke earnestly for better than a half hour on microchips as a literal invasion of privacy.

He was followed by a hefty woman who described herself as a resident of DeKalb County. "I'm also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip," the woman said. [Uh-oh.]

Microchips, the woman began, "infringe on issues that are fundamental to our very existence. Our rights to privacy, our rights to bodily integrity, the right to say no to foreign objects being put in our body." [Well, that makes sense.]

She spoke of the "right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electronic devices." [Um . . .]

She continued. "Microchips are like little beepers. Just imagine, if you will, having a beeper in your rectum or genital area, the most sensitive area of your body. [Oh, dear.] And your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city. All done without your permission."

While this was going on, "Setzler, the sponsoring lawmaker, sat next to the witness – his head bowed."

Remarkably, despite this direct evidence of how loony this concern really is -- the woman said that "researchers" with the Department of Defense had implanted her microchip and that she had been pursuing a court case for years to try to get it removed -- the committee then voted to approve the bill and send it on to the full House.

If it passes the House and is signed by the governor (to his credit, that does not appear likely), Georgia would become the fourth state in which laws prohibit microchipping. North Dakota, Wisconsin, and California (which I can assure you has more important things to worry about) are also on that list. Virginia's legislature has considered, but not yet passed, similar legislation. There, a supporter declared that microchips were the "mark of the Beast" mentioned in the Book of Revelations. If the Georgia experience is any guide, that legislation should sail right through.

Last year, CNN quoted Bruce Schneier, a well-known security expert, as saying that whole-body imaging technology "works pretty well," it just "doesn't make us safer." He pointed out that even if airport security was 100% effective, then terrorists would just target other locations, like the hotel they targeted in Mumbai. "We'd be much better off," Schneier said, "going after bad guys [in the field] and back to pre-9/11 levels of airport security. . . . It's stupid to spend money [when] terrorists can change plans."

In the year since he said that, the TSA has bought at least 150 of the machines that show you naked but don't make us safer, for about $170,000 each. It is planning to buy another 300 next year.

January 13, 2010

Alfred Hightower had been on the run since 2007, when a warrant was issued for his arrest on drug-dealing charges. Hightower was apparently from Kokomo, Indiana, but had fled to Canada. His downfall, though, was that he spent a lot of time in World of Warcraft.

That was not a place he could hide from intrepid Howard County Sheriff's Deputy Matt Roberson. Roberson heard through the grapevine that Hightower was in Canada, and began gathering information about him to see if he could confirm that. A source told him that Hightower regularly played an online game that the source described as "some warlock and witches game." That sounds like the source was maybe somebody's grandma, but it didn't take Roberson long to guess that this was probably World of Warcraft.

Roberson then contacted Blizzard Entertainment, the company that runs the game (which has, remarkably, more than 14 million players worldwide), and asked if it would help track Hightower down. Blizzard is located in Orange County, California, and so was beyond the reach of a Howard County subpoena. But after three or four months, Blizzard handed over the info. It gave up Hightower's IP address, online screen name, account information and history, and billing address. Either the billing address was not current or Roberson is as big a geek as I am, because he located Hightower by running an IP address search that allows you to determine longitude and latitude, plugged that into Google Earth, got an address, and called the Mounties.

The report has a link to Hightower's actual character information on the Warcraft website. Surprisingly, he was not able to defeat the Canadians even though he is a level 80 shaman who wields a Titansteel Spellblade in his Deadly Gladiator's Ringmail Gauntlets. On the other hand, he is more of a healer than anything else, so he may have just been overwhelmed by the formidable Mounted Police of the North. They picked him up in Ottawa and deported him.

It seems to me like there are a few unanswered questions as to how exactly the deputy got his man (or whatever). Roberson admitted he "knew exactly what" Hightower was playing because he "used to play it" himself. Maybe Rastlynn the Shaman killed the wrong elf online, and ended up paying for it in real life.

December 23, 2009

Police in Roxbury, Massachusetts, said that an exasperated mother called 911 on Saturday, saying she could not get her 14-year-old son to stop playing "Grand Theft Auto" and go to sleep. Angela Mejia said she woke up at 2:30 a.m., hours after telling the boy to go to bed, and saw the light on in his bedroom. Sure enough, he was in there communing with Satan by playing the video game against her wishes. Apparently believing she had no other options, Mejia called police, who were able to talk the boy down and tuck him into bed.

Mejia appeared to blame the makers of "Grand Theft Auto" for her inability to control her son. "I would never buy that kind of video [game]," she told the Boston Herald. "No way. I called [911] because if you don't respect your mother, what are you going to do in your life? . . . I want to help my son, but I can't find a way."

Well, here's one way - don't let him have a Playstation in his room. Here's another - if he does have one, unplug it and physically take it out of the room. Or, if what you don't like is "Grand Theft Auto," push the button (it looks like an arrow) on the top of the machine. A flat silver thing will come out that you should then take to your priest for the appropriate ceremony. That's three ways right there, each of which should be tried by you before calling 911. Seriously, I have more sympathy for the lady who called 911 when McDonald's ran out of McNuggets than I do for this one, but that might be because I like McNuggets and am not a huge fan of "Grand Theft Auto." (Have him try "Borderlands" and he will forget all about GTA. A possible fourth strategy, and also a solid endorsement of my possible parenting skills.)

Surprisingly, Lawrence Kutner, the author of a book called "Grand Theft Childhood," did have sympathy for Mejia (who, to be somewhat fair, is a single mother dealing with four kids). "Clearly, it's a very, very rare situation for someone to call the cops," he said, suggesting he does not know about the McNugget lady, among others. He admitted her call was an "extreme" reaction but claimed to understand her frustration with game addiction. Much more surprisingly, a police spokesman also downplayed the use of 911 for child-control purposes. Officer Joe Zanoli said the call over video-game obsession "was a little unusual, but by no means is it surprising -- especially in today's day and age when these kids play video games and computer games."

My (unscientific) review of the comments to this story on the Boston Herald's website suggests that a rather large majority of people do find it surprising and even irresponsible. But not everyone does. One commenter wrote, "child services must be called and intervene since the mother allowed an ultra violent video game into her state funded apartment." My question is, where are the hyphens in that household? If children are being exposed to that kind of grammar abuse, I'm calling child services myself.